![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithScientists warn fake research is spreading faster than real science
A major investigation found organized networks producing fake scientific papers, selling authorships, and manipulating journals to mass-publish fraudulent research.
A sweeping new study from Northwestern University reveals that scientific fraud is no longer just the work of a few rogue researchers—it has evolved into a global, organized enterprise. By analyzing massive datasets of publications, retractions, and editorial records, researchers uncovered networks involving “paper mills,” brokers, and compromised journals that systematically produce and sell fake research, authorship slots, and citations.
This isn't actually a new problem. It likely dates back 20 years or more, as the decline of education led to more students buying school papers -- and then, after graduation, realizing that they needed professional publication credits, so they kept using the same technique. So did the people selling those papers.
I've been aware for a long time that science is riddled with fraud, because I like to read about compilation studies. These gather as many studies as they can on a given topic -- say, the pros and cons of eating eggs. Then they winnow it down by discarding studies that didn't have the data they wanted to analyze, or had flaws in scientific method, or whatever. They give the starting number, reduced number, and how many were discarded for which reasons. They typically discard at least a third, and scientific flaws account for a large proportion of that. Many fake papers will fail out for those reasons.
The authors say the findings should serve as a warning to the scientific community to strengthen safeguards before public trust in science begins to erode.
Shut the barn door after the horse it out. Many people have already noticed these problems, but also, have noticed places where business and politics intrude on science and make the results unreliable or dangerous. So trust is already plummeting.
The researchers also stress the urgency of tackling these problems before artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more deeply embedded in the scientific literature.
"If we're not prepared to deal with the fraud that's already occurring, then we're certainly not prepared to deal with what generative AI can do to scientific literature," Richardson said. "We have no clue what's going to end up in the literature, what's going to be regarded as scientific fact and what's going to be used to train future AI models, which then will be used to write more papers."
I think they're pretty much screwed on this front, which means we're all screwed. Humans may work better, but AI works faster. It can simply generate more slop than people have the time or money to fact-check.
"This study is probably the most depressing project I've been involved with in my entire life," Amaral said.
Dude, be glad you're not a biologist studying coral reefs or amphibians. That's the background radiation of their lives.
A major investigation found organized networks producing fake scientific papers, selling authorships, and manipulating journals to mass-publish fraudulent research.
A sweeping new study from Northwestern University reveals that scientific fraud is no longer just the work of a few rogue researchers—it has evolved into a global, organized enterprise. By analyzing massive datasets of publications, retractions, and editorial records, researchers uncovered networks involving “paper mills,” brokers, and compromised journals that systematically produce and sell fake research, authorship slots, and citations.
This isn't actually a new problem. It likely dates back 20 years or more, as the decline of education led to more students buying school papers -- and then, after graduation, realizing that they needed professional publication credits, so they kept using the same technique. So did the people selling those papers.
I've been aware for a long time that science is riddled with fraud, because I like to read about compilation studies. These gather as many studies as they can on a given topic -- say, the pros and cons of eating eggs. Then they winnow it down by discarding studies that didn't have the data they wanted to analyze, or had flaws in scientific method, or whatever. They give the starting number, reduced number, and how many were discarded for which reasons. They typically discard at least a third, and scientific flaws account for a large proportion of that. Many fake papers will fail out for those reasons.
The authors say the findings should serve as a warning to the scientific community to strengthen safeguards before public trust in science begins to erode.
Shut the barn door after the horse it out. Many people have already noticed these problems, but also, have noticed places where business and politics intrude on science and make the results unreliable or dangerous. So trust is already plummeting.
The researchers also stress the urgency of tackling these problems before artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more deeply embedded in the scientific literature.
"If we're not prepared to deal with the fraud that's already occurring, then we're certainly not prepared to deal with what generative AI can do to scientific literature," Richardson said. "We have no clue what's going to end up in the literature, what's going to be regarded as scientific fact and what's going to be used to train future AI models, which then will be used to write more papers."
I think they're pretty much screwed on this front, which means we're all screwed. Humans may work better, but AI works faster. It can simply generate more slop than people have the time or money to fact-check.
"This study is probably the most depressing project I've been involved with in my entire life," Amaral said.
Dude, be glad you're not a biologist studying coral reefs or amphibians. That's the background radiation of their lives.
(no subject)
Date: 2026-03-08 10:58 pm (UTC)and yeah... anyone in biology or climatology can tell you about depressing. I was commiserating with a former alumni the other week. She'd just finished an exhaustive study on a species of island frog and it's role in an island ecosystem somewhere out in the Pacific and was just set to publish her findings after two years, about 18 months in the field and 6 months writing... only to be informed by her editor that apparently the island the frog lives on has been built over with a military base and an airport.
The frog and it's entire unique ecosystem is extinct. There's not even any in zoos.
Needless to say, she was heartbroken. Dozens, maybe hundreds of unique species, all gone because no-one cared. She's kicking herself for not publishing sooner, she said it might've stopped the development. But as I said, realistically it wouldn't have made a difference. The Pentagon isn't going to care about some fly-speck of an island that didn't even have a name, not when they need it to keep an eye on China or whomever.
Come to think of it.. that's kind of the problem. A.I mills spamming publications and no-one cares to check if they're fake or not... because there's so much of them and a million&one other things that need doing and no time to do any of it or any money to employ the people to do it. Or checking if the land you want to build on is home to something unique..
Huh.. wonder if you could train an A.I to spot fake A.I generated research?
(no subject)
Date: 2026-03-09 01:58 am (UTC)It makes it more concrete when you think of ONE frog species. Puts it in the monkeysphere of the brain, I guess.
Sigh
Date: 2026-03-09 01:47 am (UTC)Re: Sigh
Date: 2026-03-09 02:18 am (UTC)I've always been able to spot errors, or political shenanigans, or other nonfacts in school resources. It got me kicked out of a lot of classes, but I learned more that way -- particularly history, but sometimes science too. I have noticed the frequency increasing.
>> By now it's so deeply entrenched that I doubt it'll improve significantly.<<
Yyyyyeah.
>> Next, everyone will JUMP on the anti-AI bandwagon and blame IT for the rampant fraud and diploma-mill tactics for at least the next ten years... <<
While I agree that AI will do a lot of damage to scientific accuracy, it is not fair to blame IT for a problem that humans started.
>> by then, it'll be THREE generations of significant scientific fraud IN ACTION.<<
Sadly so.
(no subject)
Date: 2026-03-09 02:32 am (UTC)Yes ...
Date: 2026-03-09 02:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2026-03-09 02:49 am (UTC)